GeForce GT 320M vs Quadro M6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M6000 with GeForce GT 320M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M6000
2015, $4,200
12 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
28.06
+10293%

M6000 outperforms 320M by a whopping 10293% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking2281415
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.41no data
Power efficiency8.641.49
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGM200G96C
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date21 March 2015 (11 years ago)15 June 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,199.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores307232
Core clock speed988 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1114 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,000 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate213.98.000
Floating-point processing power6.844 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs968
TMUs19216
L1 Cache1.1 MBno data
L2 Cache3 MB32 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-II
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount12 GB512 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth317.4 GB/s25.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 4x DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.21.1

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

Quadro M6000 28.06
+10293%
GT 320M 0.27

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro M6000 11726
+10277%
Samples: 195
GT 320M 113
Samples: 361

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 26 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.06 0.27
Recency 21 March 2015 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 14 Watt

Quadro M6000 has a 10293% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 1686% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M6000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 320M is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.5 156 votes

Rate Quadro M6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 139 votes

Rate GeForce GT 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M6000 or GeForce GT 320M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.